AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 658 ::2003 AIR SCW 6271 ::(2004) 13 IndLD 49 ::2003 (12) SCC 738 ::(2003) 9 Scale 643 ::2004 (3) MadLJ73 ::2003 (7) SLT 561 ::2004 (2) Supreme 593 ::(2003) 9 JT 178 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Andhra Pradesh)

Hon'ble Judge(s): V. N. Khare, Satya Brata Sinha, Ar. Lakshmanan , JJJ

(A) Andhra Pradesh Excise Act (17 of 1968) , S.72(3)— Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules (1969) , R.24— (as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 973 Dt. 21-11-02) Samples of arrack/toddy - Analysis - Retrospective amendment to R. 24 to provide for analysis by independent laboratory - Is done with laudable object of protecting health of public - Not unreasonable/arbitrary - Amendment is procedural in nature - Can be given retrospective effect. General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) , S.6— Per Dr. AR. Lakshmanan (for himself and on behalf of V. N. Khare, C.J.I.): R. 24 has been amended by the Government in order to curb menace of adulteration of toddy and in order to implement the policy guidelines to curb the adulteration of toddy crimes and also to check the toddy shops and draw samples by utilising the services of the prohibition and Excise Officers for analysis. R. 24 has been amended in the larger public interest which enables the officials to send the sample to the independent laboratories for analysis of the toddy. Such rule having retrospective effect is not violating any provisions of the said Rules. The amendment was made to protect the health of the public at large and, therefore, it cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary. The intention of the Government is laudable since the same has been done to protect ....